Laying blame on the driver (or pedestrian or cyclist) is convenient for many powerful forces in transportation. But it’s counterproductive.
People do make mistakes that lead to crashes. But more often than not, other factors could’ve prevented or mitigated the collision.
What if the road engineer designed a less confusing intersection? What if the truck wasn’t so heavy or tall? What if the cyclist had a protected bike lane?
Focusing solely on human error ignores questions like these.
.@NHTSAgov, the road safety agency, gave birth to the 94% myth.
In a 2015 memo, NHTSA called human error “the critical factor” in 94% of crashes, defined as "the last failure in the causal chain of events" - NOT a sole cause.
But that context was subsequently ignored.
Now, NHTSA’s own website states, simply and misleadingly, that “94% of serious crashes are due to human error.” nhtsa.gov/technology-inn…
Even more than carmakers, autonomous vehicle companies have embraced the 94% myth. It underpins their claim that AVs will make crashes a thing of the past.
The predictable result: A road safety industry that pours millions of public dollars into “education campaigns,” implying that if people would be more careful, the crashes would cease.
As the USA downplays the danger of unsafe cars and infrastructure, the national traffic fatality rate is rising - and surging for pedestrians/cyclists. Meanwhile, Europe and East Asia have shown steady declines.
Rather than pour money into wasteful education campaigns, focus on designing safer cars and streets.
Europeans created Vision Zero as a way to examine all crash causes - but in the USA it's turned into an empty catch phrase and an excuse for politicians' inaction.
Where possible, shift crash investigations away from police - who instinctively search for a person to blame -and toward local DOT staff trained to find dangerous infrastructure.
Update the New Car Assessment Program (the one with crash test dummies) to evaluate risk posed to pedestrians and cyclists. The EU, Japan, and Australia already do this.
The newly-passed infrastructure bill could bring major - and very positive - changes to auto safety.
Example: The bill requires that autos be equipped with tech to detect when the driver is drunk (and prevent them from driving). The alcohol industry fought this hard.
[cont'd]
The bill also pushes USDOT to (finally!) update the New Car Assessment Program (crash test dummy program), to evaluate the risk that car models pose to pedestrians and cyclists -- who are currently completely ignored.
Minimum performance standards for Advanced Driving Assistance Systems, addressing the wide (and confusing) disparities in what these systems can do right now.
This month @VanMoof unveiled the V, a “hyperbike” capable of 37 mph - faster than the fastest Tour de France time trial.
VanMoof knows that regulations aren't designed for a bike like this, but CEO Ties Carlier told me he expects governments to adapt. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
In the USA, an e-bike that exceeds 28 mph falls into a regulatory limbo. State officials admitted to me that they don’t know how to treat it.
Is it a bike - or a moped, which would trigger extra rules for registration, helmet use, etc? wired.com/story/guide-to…
Congress' new reconciliation language DOES include the e-bike tax credit -- and it's back up to 30% of the e-bike's cost (the House had previously cut it to 15%).
Other core elements remain the same-- still means-tested (starting at $75k income), still requires the e-bike to cost less than $5k.
Nope! Expanded highways attract more car trips, which inevitably slows traffic down again. You can blame induced demand, a theory that economists (but not construction-loving state DOTs) have long accepted. bloomberg.com/news/features/…
Myth 2⃣: "94% of human crashes are caused by human error"
Nope! Blaming the driver alone lets others off the hook, including engineers who design dangerous roads, car companies building heavier & taller SUVs/trucks, and cities underinvesting in sidewalks.
In @Slate, my take on the controversy around Dr. Missy Cummings’ appointment at @NHTSAgov — and what it means for the Biden admin's ability to address the recklessness of Tesla Autopilot and Full-Self Driving.
A Duke professor and human factors expert, Cummings is well qualified for the role, which requires working w/carmakers, tech co's, gov officials, and advocacy groups.
A backlash has come from the company whose pattern of disregarding safety gives it the most to lose: Tesla.
Cummings has been vocal about the dangers of Autopilot and Full-Self Driving (I interviewed her for this piece last December).
But that doesn't mean she's biased -- it makes her realistic and knowledgable, like Lina Khan criticizing Facebook. slate.com/technology/202…